like those in 2, this crown has four smaller clusters on each side. The crown is incised
only. Its position is rather curious, considerably off center and to the right of the text above it.
105
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON
7. 7h (FD III 2, no. 48), lines 53-54. aTebcavJaat (rd KOLVOV T-v TTEpl TOV Ltovvaov TEXVLtrav) xpvUd(tL) r?TEaCVC)(tL) Tiot TOV OEOV WLot 7TaTptov Eoart arTEavovv TOVS ItlOVS EvepyEras. Line 61. orTEbavCoaatL S Kat Xop[o0S]tdaoKaAov avrwv
AJtOKA[rV] Kal t'rS OEpOVS W TL T ov EovE o)TE[Sa]VLt.
No crowns were carved below this inscription, probably because there was not sufficient room to accommodate them.
8. 8 (Agora I 1773a).
Traces of an incised olive crown appear similar to crowns 1 and 3 in 4 (P1. 8).
9. 11 (Agora I 3871b). Line 17, Xpv, may refer to a gold crown.
10. 12 (Agora I 5919).
The names are arranged for wreaths, but none were incised-presumably the crowns were painted. In this prytany decree, none of the citations below the list of names received incised crowns.
11. 14 (EM 5228). Diameter: ca. 0.12 m.
The two-pointed leaves show that these are laurel crowns. The crown is incised in outline (P1. 33, a). The leaves are somewhat awkwardly made and fail to achieve the symmetry seen in crown 5 of 6 (P1. 38, d) and in the crown of 7f (P1. 38, e); they recall, rather, the olive crowns of 2 (infra, p. 108).
12. 15 (EM 5581), line 8. Xpvorct a[reaEb t _ _].
13. 16 (II2 1023), lines 14-15. Gold. Diameter: ca. 0.185 m.
This crown is the largest and most elaborate one cut by B, and, therefore, comple- ments the already impressive appearance of the monument (supra, p. 76). It is not merely given the effect of relief by a slight cutting away of the surface around its outline, but it is in full relief, i.e. higher than the inscribed surface (P1. 34, c). Therefore, its position was predetermined so that, when the surface was prepared for inscribing, the part reserved for the crown could be left at a higher level. This crown depicts olive leaves which have a realistic central stem dividing each leaf into two halves. The triangle which is used to join the two halves of such a crown is also employed. B has placed the nomen as high up in the crown as possible at the first place where he could fit it in on one line. Apparently he wished to avoid dividing it between two lines. No title was inscribed above the crown.
14. 17 (II2 1341).
The tie of this crown (P1. 36, a) differs from the type generally cut by B; all of the crowns which have ties, except for No. 3 (3), the tie of which is abbreviated, have one exactly like that of No. 13 (16). This provides a fairly certain indication that the crown is not by B, but by the cutter who inscribed the title (cf. commentary on 17, line 24).
It is of the incised outline variety.
106
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING
Did the Same Cutter Engrave the Lettering and the Crowns? The crown represents some- thing of a different order from inscribing letters: the easily perceived development in
the olive crowns (infra) suggests that they required a certain artistic skill-they
certainly demanded many more curving lines than an alphabet. That crowns were not incised at all in some instances (4, the last row of citations, and 12) indicates that it was a time-consuming process to make one. There is, however, no evidence for a specialist. The interplay between the placing of the titles and crowns in the eight small crowns of 6 (lines 246-256) proves that they are all the work of one man. The uni- formity among the crowns also leads to the same conclusion. In the one case where it is a priori probable that B did not engrave the crown (17), the remains differ in shapefrom the others.
When, in Relative Terms, were the Crowns Engraved? The evidence is not absolutely in agreement, but the suggestion is that the work on a stele was done consecutively from top to bottom. In 6, the erasures in the titles for crowns 6 and 7 to accommodate
the tie prove that the text up to and including the title was inscribed before the crown.
The evidence leads to the same conclusion in 3. In 4, however, the slight distortion at the bottom of crowns 1-2 nay result from their being inscribed in their final form after the second decree had been finished. The position for the crown in 16 had to be prepared, at the very least, before the final surface was readied for the letters. The lettering within the crowns came last, for the placement of the letters can be observed to take into account very precisely the final contours of the crown.
Were the Crowns Engraved in any particular Order? One would expect a cutter out of habit to cut the crowns from left to right, since this was the way he cut the letters. The order of precedence demonstrates that the degree of importance of the crowns was conceived in this order. The workmanship of B's crowns also supports this natural
assumption. For example, the first crown of 2 received more work than the others;the normal spacing of the third crown of 4 apparently results from a dissatisfaction with the crowding necessary in the first two. But most convincing is the line alignment of crowns 1-5 in 6, where the lines of crown 2 depend on crown 1, and crowns 4 and 5 on crown 3.
How were Crowns Inscribed? An incised guideline was always drawn with a compass and the crown was inscribed in reference to it. The relative complexity involved in inscribing the contours of the leaves symmetrically over this guideline makes it likely that the crowns were at least drawn in outline before they were cut. After this, they were incised, and, if desired, the stone was then pared down along the inside and out- side of this outline to obtain a relief effect. Single crowns are always set in semi-relief in this fashion; groups of crowns are rarely accorded this elaboration, probably because 107
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON
of the extra work involved. When a series of crowns was involved, they were aligned horizontally at the bottom (4, crowns 1-3, represents the only exception). The lettering in them was placed along horizontal guidelines which were drawn through the crowns, and an attempt was made either to begin or end the lettering of all on the same line. The perfect alignment desired could not always be attained under crowded conditions (6, crowns 1-5).
Size of the Crowns. Since the primary purpose of a crown is to call visual attention to the person honored, the crown will be as large as the space allows. Where space is unlimited, as, apparently, in 16, overall proportion is the governing factor. It is the elaboration of the crown, as this inscription reveals, which is the ultimate honor, and not the size.
Types. Four types appear: gold (1), olive (2), laurel (3), and ivy (6, crown 1).
Gold and olive are the most frequent, but it is certain that B could inscribe any shape which he (or his assistants?) could draw. Of these, all can be golden, and it is probable that most inscribed crowns were decorated with gold paint. In any case, all crowns were normally painted.
Development of the Olive Crown. Only in the case of the olive-leaf crown can a develop- ment be perceived in B's ability to render it successfully. The earliest examples, in 2 (116/5 B.C.), are rather heavy and awkward; the angles and size of the leaves are not uniform. The leaf on the lower right in crown 2 (P1. 5, a) is particularly unsuccessful.
The stems which support the olives are disproportionately thick. A single, three- pointed (') leaf predominates, though a three-segment leaf (f) occurs occasion- ally. The crown is made up of six leaf clusters, three on each side. In 7f appears the latest dated example (98/7 B.C.), an olive crown of almost exactly the same size as those in 2 (P1. 38, e). The proportion of the leaves is much better; the upper leaves are uniformly slightly larger than the lower. B has avoided the heaviness of those of 2 by making everything smaller-the tie at the top, e.g. He has made the leaves smaller, thus employing eight clusters instead of six. The thick stem of the olives has become a single incised line. The leaves are now all in three segments;
the middle segments were centered over the incised guideline and then the outer leaves were drawn. This and the small size provide a control not seen in the earlier inscription.
By 104/3 B.C. (4) B seems to have developed a surer sense of proportion in render- ing olive crowns; the leaves, however, are all three pointed. He had adopted the three- segmented leaf by 101/0 B.C. (6) and seems to have used this style regularly after that.
Since few of the undated fragments (only 8, 14, 16, and 17) have crowns, this is of limited chronological help. The crown of 8 has a single three-pointed leaf which supports 108
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING
Dow's "shortly before 104/3" date. The awkward rendition of the olive-like laurel leaves in 14 suggests an early date, ca. 110 e.g. The elaboration of the crown in 16 excludes it from consideration as a normal olive crown, hence this canon of shape of leaf cannot be applied.
What is the Intent of the Inscribed Crown ? It is primarily a mark of honor. The number and type do not necessarily reflect in detail the crowns actually voted (6, crown 6 especially). As a stele was primarily commemorative, so the crowns were primarily decorative in intent and, therefore, could be added to fill space and enhance the appearance of the stele when it seemed desirable.47 The crowns are not haphazard, however, and surely do reflect, in general, the crowns voted. The wording in 1 and 16 is the same (i.e. Xpva^lt a(TTEaavcL)); the difference in shape must be due to the fact that different types of gold crowns were actually awarded. In addition, the order of precedence observed in the crowns of prytany and ephebic decrees clearly indicates that careful planning lay behind the number and order of the crowns in almost every instance.4 48
ERROR AND CORRECTION
The discussion of clerical details in Part Two has shown that B made frequent mistakes. Of the inscriptions treated in this study, only eight reveal no errors in the parts preserved. The sole relatively complete document which shows none is 7g, and it is only eleven lines in length. There existed, obviously, no horror errati which prompted letter-perfect work, and we may fairly assume that in this period it was a rare occurrence for an inscription of any length to be completed absolutely free from error.49
The mistakes are normally short and the evidence shows that they were corrected at once. Errors of omission or addition, caused by haste and by looking back at the wrong place in the working copy, account for the majority of mistakes. Infelicitous spacing and mistakes in the working copy itself account for most of the others. Except for minor errors of omission (letter strokes in particular), mistakes are, as a general rule, corrected. When a serious mistake remains uncorrected, a reason other than
47 W. S. Ferguson, "The Attic Orgeones," pp. 138-139 notes an example.
48 It is scarcely accidental, e.g., that Oeo98Oos o IEtpatEvs who was honored 15 years earlier in 1, was accorded crown no. 1 in 2.
49 Personal observation assures me that this statement is accurate, although it is impossible to substantiate by reference to I.G., II2 (cf. Appendix I). Larfeld (Handbuch, I, p. 230) takes the position that comparatively few errors occur and deduces from this that there was careful checking ofpre-drawn letters. He also imagines the possibility of another careful correction after inscribing. It is unclear pre- cisely to what period he means his remarks to refer; they are certainly not applicable to the years 150- 100 B.C. Further, I think it open to question whether they represent the facts for any period in Attic epigraphy prior to the time of the Roman empire.
109
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON
pure oversight probably lies behind it, as in the case of the errors in line 92 of 6 and
line 16 of 7h.
In the long-lasting medium of marble, a mistake in inscribing naturally caused the letter-cutter serious problems, for he could not merely pick up an eraser and rub out the incorrect letters. The most frequent method of correction was to cut them
away; no matter how carefully the cutter performed this operation, it inevitably left a depression in the inscribed surface and often an unsightly gash (P1. 16, a). It must also have been laborious and time-consuming, for where the error was small enough (7d, line 63; P1. 26, b), or where the letter shapes allowed it (6, line 1 14; P. 17, b), B simply inscribed the correct letters on top of the incorrect ones with little or no actual erasing.
Occasionally, instead of cutting away the letters with a chisel, B employed an abrasive substance to remove the surface more evenly, the way sandpaper is used on wood. To my knowledge, this mode of correction is here noted for the first time; it has the ad- vantage of leaving practically no mark of erasure, but is relatively inefficient in remov-
ing the letters. In addition, it is limited in its use to places where there is blank spaceabove and below the words to be erased, that is, where there is room enough to apply the abrasion effectively. Only two clear examples of this type of erasure appear in B's work: 3, line 26 (PI. 7, b) and 7b, line 25 (Pl. 22, b). When a cutter has simply omitted a letter or two, and spacing or a desire to avoid extensive erasure make it seem advan- tageous, the omitted letters may be added in the margin or superscript in the interline.50
B took advantage of the latter expedient once (7h, line 16), but did not let it stand whenhe perceived that further correction was necessary. He apparently did not like this
means of correction.In dealing with erasures, two general principles can be established. 1) A canon of least work operates: the erasure will not be longer than necessary and, a corollary
of this, as many letters as possible of the original text will be re-used. See, e.g., 7a, line 20; 7h, line 52; and 6, line 185. 2) A crowding or a spreading out of the letters inan erasure provides positive indication that the correction was not made immediately,
but later in checking or even after the work was completed. 13, line 7 and 6, line 92 provide clear examples.The interpretation of erasures depends entirely on the remains of the original text. These are often extensive due to the cutter's effort to make the erasure as in- conspicuous as possible. With the aid of the two principles set forth above, and the knowledge that the cutter did not lay the text out on the stone before inscribing (infra, pp. 115ff.), it is often possible to reach a probable or even certain conclusion
regarding the nature of the mistake. It is well to remember, however, that some mistakes are not susceptible to logical reasoning.
50 Larfeld (Handbuch, I, pp. 233-234) gives some examples.
110
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING
The following list provides references to examples of the most frequent types of mistakes; the table at the end of this section attempts to classify all of B's errors.5'
Dittography.52 6, line 92
7b, line 25 7b, line 42
Haplography.1, line 15 5, line 149
7h, line 21
Omission or addition (resulting from looking back to the working copy at the wrong
place).
6, line 17 6, line 242
7h, line 23
Omission, anticipatory.53 4, line 19
6, line 114
7h, line 20
Misspacing.3, line 26 5, line 270 6, lines 74-75
51 Cf. A. E. Raubitschek, Dedications, p. 452f., for a list of errors on early dedications; Larfeld, Handbuch, I, pp. 231-234 and S. Reinach, Traite d'tpigraphie Grecque, Paris, 1885, pp. 325-330 give general lists.
52 Classifying errors is somewhat arbitrary, for the categories overlap. Dittography and haplog- raphy both result, in most cases, from looking back at the wrong place in the working copy. Not all examples of looking back to the wrong place, however, fall clearly into the categories dittography and haplography. I have sought to assign what seemed the most probable interpretation to each mistake, with some inconsistency perhaps. The table at the end of this discussion attempts to compensate for this by beginning with two large categories, namely, Omissions and Additions, which are then subdivided.
The reader may not agree with the placement of an error in a subdivision but the overall picture given by the principal categories is, I believe, accurate.
53 I define this error as the omission of a few letters and apply it to places where B simply appears to get ahead of himself for no observable reason.
111
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
TABLE OF ERRORS
5. Error
1. Omission 2. Addition 3. Mis- 4. Mis- in Wrk'g 6. Un- Total
spacing reading copy identified Inscription
no.
a. b. c. d. e. a. b. c.
Haplo- Wrong Antici- Incom- Other Ditto- Wrong Other
graphy Place patory plete graphy Place
Letter 1 26
1 15 4 36 30 7
9 2
3 5 26 3
40 47
4 19 41 4
149 81 270 54? 270
5 88 6
93 17? 104 6 92 92 195 244 59 95 53 155 24 128
105 185 114 54 122 96 242? 60 192 92 243 75
6 106 214 142 157 316 64 246 107 91 154
116 316 74 250 150 108 156
125? 75 288 123 212
83 296 124 217 52
7 18
7a 4 17 20 17? 6
7b (FD 11I2, 25 15 16
no. 2 29 4
and 47 51 42 50 57
no. 10) 5
7c (no.31 11 2 6? 3
and 33 55 16?
no. 17) 48? 4
3
0- z r
o
z
C)
^4
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
TABLE OF ERRORS
5. Error
1. Omission 2. Addition 3. Mis- 4. Mis- in Working 6. Un- Total
Inscription spacing reading copy identified
no.
a. b. c. d. e. a. b. c.
Haplo- Wrong Antici- Incom- Other Ditto- Wrong Other graphy Place patory plete graphy Place
Letter
52 41 35 5
7d 56 63
7f 3 1
4 29 5 9 9 28 23 2 52?
6 20 16 56 25 5
7h 11 31 21 27 14?
21 (bis) 24 31 24
7i 8(II) 1
9 3? 1
10 10 1
11 12 1
13 7 1
7 31
16 27 3
7
17 12 2
20 20 29 2
Total 55 22 17 15 9 18 136
Explanatory Comments
1. The numbers, except for the totals, are line numbers. A Roman numeral in parentheses represents the column number. A ? indicates strong doubt about the classification. "Wrong place" stands for looking back in the working copy at the wrong place.
2. 2, 18, 19, 7g, 8, 12, 14, and 15 reveal no errors.
0-4 _
Q
> 3 * ^
n
W
0
2
0
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON
Another type of omission occurs frequently enough that mention ought to be made of it; this is the omission of letter strokes. Epsilon (seven times), eta (three times), alpha (twice), omega (twice), kappa, sigma, and tau (all once) lack a stroke. The occurrence is so infrequent in proportion to the total number of letters inscribed that simple oversight seems to explain it adequately.54
A high frequency of error signifies unusual problems in inscribing, for the cutter normally worked carefully (he surely did not get paid to do otherwise) and could inscribe for long stretches with a minimum of error. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 16 provide the norm.
The higher incidence of error in the inscriptions on the wall of the Athenian Treasury is probably due to the difficulty of inscribing the blocks in situ and to the necessity for haste. The frequency of gross mistakes which required lengthy erasure in 6 doubtless reflects to a great extent B's preoccupation with the problem of too little space. Errors provide an opportunity for learning about the difficulties of inscribing; for this reason much emphasis has been placed upon discussing them. It would be an injustice, however, to think of 6 as typical of B's work or, pending study of other cutters, of B as unusually prone to committing errors. It is to be remembered that most of the lines which he inscribed are error free.
Table of Errors (pp. 112-113). One figure in this table deserves some comment.
Errors of omission occur about two and a half times as often as errors of addition. That is to say, B had a much stronger tendency to omit something, and, therefore, to save himself some work, than vice versa. This seems true to human nature; it also reflects very probably an ingrained tendency (born of necessity?) to hurry the work to completion.
54 Larfeld, Handbuch, I, p. 205, offers the following explanation for strokes and letters omitted:
"Alsdann wurden die Buchstaben mit dem Pinsel in Farbe vorgemalt, wie man noch deutlich aus fluchtig gearbeiteten Grabschriften ersehen kann, auf denen der Steinschreiber aus Nachlassigkeit es nicht selten unterliess, den einen oder anderen der vorgemalten Buchstaben auch wirklich aus- zumeissen .. ." His statement, of course, hinges on the assumption of a pre-painted text.
114
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING
THE PROCESS OF INSCRIBING
Was the Text Written out on the Stone before Inscribing? The answer to this question provides the key to synthesizing the evidence presented above into a coherent, though fragmentary, account of the procedure which B actually followed in making an in- scription. The many errors discussed in Part Two demonstrate that B did not draw the letters on the stone with paint or graphite before cutting, for, had he done so, most of the mistakes could not have occurred. To clarify the point, a second con- sideration of three errors seems useful. 1) In line 149 of 5 (P1. 1 1, a), B could only have begun to inscribe AcO for ANAO if he had made the mistake in the graphite copy (supposing for the moment that he made such a copy) and not corrected it before be- ginning work with the chisel. 2) Only someone who has never watched a sign-painter improve on the spacing of his roughly sketched first copy when painting in the letters55 could imagine that B was able to misspace in lines 74-75 of 6 as he did (P1. 15, a), having already drawn the letters on the stone. It is obvious that the corrections repre- sent his improvement of a rather inept first attempt. 3) In the case of the triplography in 7h, line 16 (P1. 28, c), one could scarcely admit such a monstrosity in a pre-drawn text and still maintain that a cutter derived any benefit from it, for the drawn-on letters, from the error on, would not only be no help but actually would be a hindrance. If a cutter took the trouble to lay out the text to the last detail on the stone, he would surely have checked over this (easily corrected) text before cutting. B, therefore, did not draw the letters on the stone prior to cutting. It was scarcely economical to do'so, for the few small errors, in most cases, which he would thereby avoid could stand unnoticed in a long decree, or be changed with a minimum of erasure or with simple superscription.
The position taken in the preceding paragraph flies in the face of all accepted opinion.56
Epigraphists seem agreed that the stonecutter did not produce direct freehand lettering with his chisel, but followed lines drawn or written beforehand. A letterer whom we have consulted in a near-by city clearly finds any other process, now or ever, unthinkable. (Contributions, p. 70.)
55 Raubitschek, Dedications, p. 242, cites an example from ca. 500 B.C. of a cutter who made a prelim- inary engraving which he improved upon in the final version. Note, moreover, that the mistakes in Dedications, nos. 6, 210, 246, and 248 indicate that the letters were not drawn beforehand.
56 With regard to Greek cutters, both Larfeld (Handbuch, I, p. 230) and G. Klaffenbach (Gr.
Epig., p. 46) state that the letters were first painted on; in treating Roman letterers, the Gordons (Contributions, p. 70 and passim) have reached a similar conclusion. Note, however, that Larfeld also granted "Da jedoch, wie schon S. 205 bemerkt wurde, die vielen Verstosse, namentlich in nichtoffiziellen Inschriften (my italics), die Annahme einer vorherigen Aufzeichnung und Priifung dieser Texte vor der Niederschrift ausschliessen . .." (ibid.). The Gordons too were influenced by observation of certain errors to have some second thoughts; see Contributions, p. 218, note 10.
Epig., p. 46) state that the letters were first painted on; in treating Roman letterers, the Gordons (Contributions, p. 70 and passim) have reached a similar conclusion. Note, however, that Larfeld also granted "Da jedoch, wie schon S. 205 bemerkt wurde, die vielen Verstosse, namentlich in nichtoffiziellen Inschriften (my italics), die Annahme einer vorherigen Aufzeichnung und Priifung dieser Texte vor der Niederschrift ausschliessen . .." (ibid.). The Gordons too were influenced by observation of certain errors to have some second thoughts; see Contributions, p. 218, note 10.